10 months in the US
Thats right. Its been ten months since I have come here to Columbus, and , like it happens, there was this sudden urge to put down something in , well , i guess you can call it writing. So here I am. The last post I wrote was on Jan 31st. It really has been a while.
When I look back on these ten months, I find it hard to qualify my experience in words. There are things that I have done which I haven't done before. I have learnt new things in the process. I guess I have had fun along the way.
Academically, it has been good. I would have said brilliant at the end of fall, but now I am just satisfied. Ill be out of here in 9 months. Little do I know where I will be heading. The same things which haunted me after my undergrad, are haunting me today. Job or research. But at least I am more clear as to what each option holds. I guess my decision will be a more informed one now.
Personally, it has been pretty good. I have made new friends, tried new things, explored a whole other side of myself. Still, once in a while, i get nostalgic. I miss the Sagu Dosa of Vidyarthi Bhavan, the Pav Bhaji of Sukh Sagar, eating in cheap places in Bangalore. Come to think of it, even though I hated Chennai, there are things about it that I miss too. I guess you always miss the time you had during your undergrad. The daily night visit to Gurunath (tea stall on our campus), and the even later night visits to Ascendas. The 'I dont care about my grades' attitude to academics and most of all, the beach! Things in Chennai (I think) sucked, but the beach more than made up for it!
Most of all , I miss home. I miss lying on the couch whole day and asking my mom to make things. Waking her up from her afternoon siesta to make coffee for me. Bullying my brother and making sure that he has the worst time when I am at home. Here I have to cook for myself, and the way i cook, well I pity whoever has to eat what I concoct.
No matter what, you are still an outsider in this country. You are not used to the way things are here, and always there is an uneasiness. Before I left India I used to wonder whether I was really "Indian". I used to think that the urban India is pretty westernized. What is it in me that makes me Indian. I now know that was the wrong question to ask.
Most of my friends said that once I went to US, I wouldnt return. I hope that its not true.....
Name-calling!
This has been my thinking for a long time, but I havent really said it out loud. Probably because some people may find it offensive. To those who do i sincerely didnt mean to.
Lot has been said/written and talked about the Bhajji "monkey" comment. Now i am not going into details of what happened. Was it racist or not, etc. etc. My point is, why is that we get so worked up about race, origin , etc.
Actually it is not only race. You call fat people "fat" , you are offending them. You say a dwarf is a "dwarf" , you are offending them. Why is it that people are so sensitive about certain issues? I think, and this is the part which may offend people, when a person is self-conscious about some aspect of himself, he doesnt like other people commenting on it. For example, im pretty thin and am below average height. If it were something that bothered me, I can see why I would get angry about it. Thankfully, I am not. Thats why I can laugh it off when someone makes jokes about my size.
Andrew Symonds got upset when people called him "monkey" cause it made fun of his origins. Well, for one thing, we are all decendants of monkeys. So, what the hell! On a less flippant note, how does it matter what Bhajji thinks of his origins. Symonds should have just walked away saying its, Bhajjis immaturity and not really care about it. But, some how he felt that he has to set Bhajji right.
Not standing up for oneself may be construed as not having the guts to do so. It is true in some cases, but it may also mean that you are mature enough to know that it is very hard to change a persons way of thinking. And why bother if it is some random guy who you dont even want to know. As long as you are sure about yourself, i dont think it should matter what anyone else says. It is more mature to walk away and let him make a fool of himself. I mean, i read this article where apparently, being called "lesbian" is now offensive and they would prefer "gayelle". I mean how does semantic even matter! And who decided it was offensive! Was it the outcome of careful delibirations and arguements in the "Lesbian Protection Society" , which may now be called "Gayelle Protection Society"!? Its just being too sensitive about issues, being to conscious about it.
What I have said so far may make me sound racist,etc. Believe me, I am not. I come from a place where people from different backgrounds co-exist, sadly not always peacefully. I have never disliked any one for their heritage, skin colour, orientation ,etc. But I see people getting worked up about small things like name-calling, and cant help but wonder, does it really matter that much. Are we mixing such trivial matters like name-calling with the real serious cases where racism actually affects quality of life and hence reducing the seriousness of the whole issue.
If everyone thought the same way, then we wouldnt have to tip-toe our way around words. We could say what we actually meant, instead of hiding behind false statements. People could be racist if they wanted to be and still, I think, everyone would be comfortable. I do understand that way people think affects their objectivity and sense of fairness. So that is what should be tackled. Being offended by name-calling, is just too childish. As Coolshankin had put on his status some day on the Andrew Symonds issue , "Miss... Miss... he called me a monkey"...
PS - Coolshankin does it again. Watch this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h67k9eEw9AY . Obviously this is way better than what i have said. Thats why i put in the last....
Gattaca in the making
Once again, its been too long. But this time, I have a reason to blog. Apparently blogs are very lucrative, and people have made a lot of money in it. So lets see how much money I make from this. So far its 0$, but I am very optimistic.
There was this very interesting article in one of the magazines at a friends place. Apparently, there is this company, Navigenics, which does a DNA analysis of a person and tells his chances of getting a certain disease, based on scientific data available. THe technical part of it, I obviously do not understand, but this development I thought has interesting implications. Is it a good thing that we can genetically characterize certain diseases, that we can genetically charecterize any feature, will it lead to stereotyping?
The movie, Gattaca, treats this very issue. It shows a future, where children are "cultured" genetically from their parents gene, "editing away" the harmful parts. All selection to jobs are based on genetic sequencing, etc. In midst of all this a couple try to have a kid the old-fashioned way. It is predicted that the kid will has 98% chance of heart attack, and so on. The kid now wants to become an astronaut, which requires the highest genetic standards. The movie is about how he cheats the system.
The point im trying to make is, that we have already reached stage 1, where we know the harmful genes. The next step is when we try to remove this harmful gene. How it will affect the other functioning of humans, is obviously being looked into. Once all the research is done, im sure genetic manipulation will become a norm to reduce diseases. Then like plastic surgery, other features will be manipulated too. Then you can as well set up a factory and manufacture human beings.
If genetic manipulation can cure diseases, then it must be looked into. But how far do we take it. Is it right for us to set a limit on what is right and what is not? By allowing this manipulation, arent we interfering with natural evolution? We are already facing difficulties for manipulating nature, but should that fear stop us from improving technology. Its interesting how so many issues boil down to the same questions. These questions prop up even in stem-cell research. With rapid advancement of technology, we will have to some how come to terms with what is good and what is not. The cultural and social evolution has to keep in pace with the technological evolution.
Whoever reads this blog, please do comment on what you think? its obviously a discussion which will be relevant only after several years, but no harm in thinking about them now itself, is it?
One and half months later.......
I was sure in the right frame of mind when i called this blog Once in a While, and it has been a while! But its been a long week so far, and having some free time I thought it would be a nice idea to visit my blog and make a contribution. I dont want this site to expire and then the address becoming a porn site! ( Believe me, it happened last time, I have no idea how )
As the name says, it has been about one and a half months in US, and mostly inspired by Coolshankins blog, I think I should point out some of the weird things here. But I will keep in mind that most people who actually do come here are all patrons of coolshankins blog. Ill try to avoid repetitions, but shankins list is pretty much exhaustive. Anyway....
1) Definitely the weirdest thing here is the traffic signal, there are times when all the signals at the junction are red, vehicle and pedestrian! Drives me absolutely crazy!!
2) How can I not crib about the food! For me , its too bland! I have been reduced to "an eat at home guy" here....
3) People here are fiercely independent. Thats why (almost) everyone owns a car. But when i say independent i dont mean aloof. They are actually pretty friendly and do start up conversation.
4) My name is tough to pronounce for people here. Its just M-A-H-E-S-H. Cant see why it should be difficult. But i cant pronounce chinese names either...
5) Its amazing how people hold the door open if you are coming up to the door, not only if you are just behind, but even if you are about 3-4 seconds away.
6) Talking of doors, the doors here are heavy for some reason! And almost all entrances are double doored i.e there is one set of door after another! Actually at a lib in the university, the Restroom ( which is also double doored ) has a very heavy inside door. Im sure its not fun for a person in emergency.
7) The coffee here is very very high on caffine. I have actually had caffine highs after having a second cup without giving too much break. That never ever happened in India, even though i used to have a lot of coffee.
8) On a more serious note, graduate students feel its a right for them to get paid for graduate school, or at least if they are working at a lab. Absolutely right if you ask me. They cannot fathom spending so much money on their own for grad school. Its only Indians I think ( dont know about other countries ) who are willing to pay that much money for a US-MS degree. I know it cant be helped, but I think univs here are taking undue advantage of that....
9) People here do work hard. Libs and computer labs are almost always full, and pin-drop silent. Everyone's studying. But they know how to party in the weekends!
10) A big feature of OSU is college football. Its not only followed by students, but the entire state is following it. Its fun to go to games and get into the spirit of it all. I am not a big footbal fan , but OSU-Buckeyes are the best!
11) Profs here love to give assignments. Its after one such assignment cycle ( every week ) that I got time today to blog. Last three four days have been crazy! But, profs here also do teach well. I think profs put in more effort into course than students. I cant say the same thing about some of the profs back home. Again, I am not saying profs in insti were bad. I was privileged to have some brilliant profs during my undergrad, some better than most profs here. I am only talking about the average....
12) The thing which struck me the most, it truly is a free country. People do whatever they want to do. It may feel weird to some, but that doesnt stop people from doing what they want to do. The other day i saw a group of 4-5 fifty year old people holding a placard against the Iraq war. I think they do it every week. People passing by either honked and showed support or showed them a thumbs down and went off. THe point is, even though there were only 5 people, and there was no big media coverage, they were doing it. Havent seen such a thing all my life in India.....
Well. I am not going to waste all my free time on blogging. So thats it for now!
Journalism or Sensationalism
So many news channel and so little news. Its hardly surprising that media nowadays are blowing up the smallest thing they can find. But still, shouldn't there be a line between cheap sensationalism which match up to the soaps of Ekta Kapoor.
The event which sparked of this post was the "news" piece i saw in Aaj Tak, where their camera crew caught up with Sanjay Dutt while he was being transported from one prison to another, and the crew started shouting out to "Baba" for his views. I mean, its just cheap!! It wasn't a proper interview, I'm sure Sanjay Dutt was also embarrassed by the whole situation. It was the most dreadful piece of television I have seen in a long time. On top of it , the next ten mins were spent in the reporter and host discussing if Sanjay Dutt was handling the situation well, whether he has accepted the situation or not. Psychiatric experts that there were, they put up some interesting comments. Aaj Tak used to be a good channel, but I think they have just no people left, now they just have bad stories. The Sanju story was covered on all the news channels for hours. I get that it is a big thing and that fans will be eager to hear about it , but once he is convicted, you can only discuss it for half an hour.
I think 24 hour news channel is a bad idea. Its good for breaking news, but otherwise, its just the same thing over and over again. The incident of the child stuck in bore well was covered minute by minute. I dont want to sound heartless, but after a point, it got painful. I agree that it was media attention that saved the kids life, but even after help reached, they kept televising it. "Oh , they have reached 20 m , Oh they have reached 30 m, Oh hes crying, Oh he isn't crying..." I am sure after help arrived the media made things worse for the rescue mission.
The role of media has come under more scrutiny after five people took poison in front of camera as a form of protest. No matter what people say, the guy who filmed it is to blame. If not shooting the story could have saved 5 lives, he must have refused to shoot it. Then they wouldn't have incentive to take such an extreme step. Its just like that fellow who took a picture of an eagle waiting to spring on a kid in Africa. The guy who took the picture later committed suicide out of guilt. Hopefully, our fella here can absorb the shock better. There is no need for loss of one more human life over this issue. I don't know where to draw the line, media does help bring attention to certain problems, and hence do perform a vital role, but extremes must be discouraged.
This is again one of those never ending debates. The importance of the media is unquestionable. But with 24 hour news channels, the stress of keeping something "on" may divert medias attention. So is commertialization of news channel bad. I dont think so. Its up to people to encourage the real stuff and cut out the crap.....
The Selfish Gene - Richard Dawkins
Once again its been a long time since I have written. Two things contributed to it. 1) The amazing effect of having no work, that it makes you not want to do anything and 2) Having nothing really to write about. But, these holidays to some extent has got me back into the habit of reading which had slipped off at the beginning of high school. After a brief effort of trying to find "my kinda book" and going through pulp fiction novels, the so called comedy novels like Wodehouse and Catch 22, I finally realized reality appeals to me more than fiction. My last three books, 1984 by George Orwell, My Experiments with truth and The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins have been truly exciting. Given 1984 is not reality, but its a kind of could have been reality, but its lovely. Having said that, I am eagerly awaiting the last Harry Potter book. Anyway, The Selfish Gene has inspired me enough to blog about it, so here I am.
The purpose of this post, like any other review is not to reveal the story of the book. Since Selfish Gene really doesn't have a story, the thing that is most appealing about it is the reasoning Dawkins gives for his theories. So I wont go into much of the reasoning here. Read the book for the reasoning, believe me its worth it.
We have obviously heard the story about how a single celled animals were first to come and how we all evolved from there. Though we don't understand how, we kinda assume it to be true, though there is a tiny, tiny possibility that it may not be true. Have you ever wondered how that first cell magically came into existence. It is brilliantly explained in the book, and following the same reasoning, it isn't too much of a leap to assume that we could evolve from those single celled animals. Dawkins claims that it is the genes that run the show, and it is those very genes responsible for those single celled animals as well as us. This is the first gripping insight into evolution the book gives.
Now one very important property of gene is that it is selfish. Obviously gene is not a living organism in conventional sense to show selfishness. But the process of natural selection shows that a gene that can survive better than its competitors will finally "win". So selfishness is in-built. Using this argument Dawkins goes on to explain the various animal and plant behaviours that exist in nature.
It has long been considered that individuals of a species act towards the betterment of the species on the whole ( or that's what the author says, i didn't really know much about it). But Dawkins takes this "group-selection" theory head on and argues that organism, which are manifestations of the gene or as he calls it "survival machines built by the genes", act only in interest of themselves and are selfish, literally to the core.
He develops his theory to account for the kinship amongst family and members of the same species. He goes onto show how cases of altruisms exhibited in nature, like a bird giving indication of arrival of a predator, in effect bringing attention towards itself, can be accounted for by the selfish gene theory. These are two things which are the hardest to get hold of in the entire book and only towards the end do you really get hold of Dawkins way of thinking. The concept of gene-kinsmanship in which he says that it is a benefit for the gene to make us care for our relatives, seems to imply that the gene is actually looking ahead and planning, and by the authors own admission, the genes don't think ahead. But he somehow manages to drive home this argument. You really have to read the book to understand it.
The best part of the book is when he starts using game theory to explain behaviour of certain species. Using very simple models he gives us an idea of how things may actually work in nature. He also gives a blow to the "group-selection" theory using this approach. He shows that in behaviour of species towards each other, there exists an evolutionarily stable strategy amongst them, which is not the most "high-yielding" strategy. If indeed group selection were true, he shows that there would be an entirely different eco-system.
Though these are some highlights of the book, there are aspects other than those mentioned above which are equally interesting. Especially the chapter on "Battle of the sexes" where he tries to arrive at the most stable system of arrangement between the sexes. The results he derives from it are so close to reality that it serves as proof for his way of thinking.
As said by W.D.Hamilton (No clue who that is.. ) "This book can be read, and should be read by everyone". Get your copy today! :)
What makes me Indian?
Being two-three months away from leaving the country for god knows how long, made me sit up and take a look at what it really means to be an Indian, and how much of an Indian am I?
To answer that question first I have to figure out, what it is to be Indian? Is it to be religious and follow all the age old traditions and rituals. Follow all the superstitions that accompany them. I am not a very religious fellow, though my parents are. So I do the things which they say are absolutely necessary, like pooja on festivals, etc. and they too allow me to live the way I want. For instance, my parents do a small pooja everyday and go to temple weekly. Not once have they forced me to do the same. But, I still do consider myself a Hindu. There are parts of the Hindu religion that I admire. The concept of Brahma, Vishnu and Maheshwara, the ideals that story like Ramayana tries to instill in children, the realities that Mahabharatha teaches you, are I think unparalleled. Hinduism gave equal status to women, with Ardhanareshwara being the ultimate diety. The four varnas of Brahmana, Kshathriya, Vaishaka and Shudra gave equal weightage to people of all walks of life. The fact that it got corrupted into the present caste system is another matter. Hinduism is very tolerant to people of different views. There is no text which tells you how to be a Hindu, Geetha is just a book of morals that one must follow in life. I think thats why India is so diverse, even though most of the country is Hindu.
But you see the present day India, it has become a country of no tolerance. Everywhere people seem to hate others, mostly based on caste and religion. Be it the hue and cry over reservations, the ugly face of which is the recent uprise by the Gujjars. Communal riots happen at an alarming frequency. Its baffling how a small percent of extremists can create such a passion in masses, over things that they usually wouldnt have bothered about. Its baffling that riots dont happen in Andhra where farmers were hanging themselves due to loss of crops. I think that deserves a riot. Forget the difference between people of different caste, I dont know why the difference in living standards of people of different class isnt highlighted. How can religion hold such a grasp over peoples thinking. It has led me to believe that it is impossible for people of different faith to live together. After all, religion is a way of living and norms to follow in society. Each guy cant live by his own set of rules. I hope that this is not true, and in future, people will learn to co-exist.
If it looks like I am being cynical, well isnt the whole of India cynical. How many times have we heard statements like, "Is deshka kuch nahi hoga" and "India me aisa he hotha hai", etc. Isnt that proof that people have given up on making the system right, and are finding ways to live in spite of all the troubles, all the corruption. I think thats the major problem. Most people know what is right and what is not. But they are not willing to do anything about it. I dont think they look at the administrative capabilities of people before voting. We as a nation are more contend to get things done, rather than doing it the right way. Thats democracy, you dont need to care.
Plus with the influence of west, things have become more confusing. There is one group which is completely western in their mannerism. The group which watches English serials, movies and reads English books. But are we also following their respect for the law, their respect for other cultures. We litter our streets, dont follow basic traffic rules and are to some extent proud of it. I am one of them too. Then there is another group which keeps harping about "maintaining our Indian culture". But give them a chance to live in the US and they will jump on it. Its this hipocracy that we should get rid of first. Practice what you preach!
It may appear that I hate everything about this country. But in reality, I do consider myself patriotic. I admire the resilience of people to go on with their lives in spite of all the troubles they face. The daily struggle in the bus or on the roads, bearing the heat, to get to office on time. Recently had been on a trek to MM Hills and stayed in a village called Naagamale. There is really nothing there apart from a few houses and fields. To get there is also some struggle. Its amazing how people live there. The kids there were playing, having fun, and people went about their business, living life in whatever little they had. They say rural India is true picture of India, I must admitted, it looked pretty peaceful.
Still, the answer eludes me. What is it to be an Indian? Is it to be religious, I am not. Is it to be cynical, that I am to some extent. Is it to not care about anything apart from what affects me, I hope I am not that. Is it to be confused, that I definitely am.
